New Jersey Supreme Court Weighs Reporter’s Right to Publish Official’s Address

TRENTON, N.J. — The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case that could determine the extent to which journalists can publish information obtained through public records. At the center of the dispute is Charlie Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, who is challenging efforts by New Brunswick officials to stop him from publishing the home address of the city’s former police director, Anthony Caputo.

Legal Battle Over Daniel’s Law

Kratovil’s legal team, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argues that officials violated his First Amendment rights by invoking Daniel’s Law to prevent him from publishing Caputo’s address. The law, passed in 2020, shields the home addresses of judges, law enforcement officers, and certain public officials from being disclosed to protect them from potential threats.

The case stems from a 2022 report by Kratovil that revealed Caputo resided in Cape May, nearly two hours from New Brunswick, raising questions about his engagement with city governance. Kratovil obtained Caputo’s address legally through an Open Public Records Act request, but city officials warned him of potential civil and criminal penalties if he published it.

“This case asks a simple question about whether the government can provide information to a reporter, then later attempt to punish the reporter for reporting that same information in a story about an issue of public concern. It cannot,” said Alexander Shalom, an attorney representing Kratovil.

Arguments Before the Court

Attorneys for New Brunswick argue that Kratovil’s reporting does not serve a significant public interest. The city’s attorney, Susan O’Connor, contended that publishing Caputo’s exact address goes beyond what is necessary for public awareness.

“The street number and the street name are not a matter of public importance and therefore does not add anything to the free and robust debate on the public issues that plaintiff is espousing,” O’Connor told the court.

However, Kratovil’s attorneys countered that the law, as applied in this case, amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. They pointed to a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Florida Star v. B.J.F., which held that the government cannot penalize a journalist for publishing truthful information legally obtained from public records.

Broader Implications for Press Freedom

The case has drawn interest from press advocacy groups, who argue that allowing officials to restrict publication of legally obtained information could set a dangerous precedent. Frank Corrado, an attorney representing press organizations, warned that such restrictions could grant courts undue influence over journalistic decisions.

“What the courts have done here … is say, ‘certain information is necessary to a story,’ and more importantly, ‘certain information is not necessary to a story,’” Corrado said. “That’s an edit of the story by any definition.”

Deputy Solicitor General Michael Zuckerman, arguing for the state, maintained that the law’s purpose is to protect officials from potential harm, not to suppress press freedom. He argued that while Caputo’s general residence may be newsworthy, his specific address is not.

“The point is he lives about two hours away, and the town is relevant to that. Nobody’s disputed that in this case, but that’s, I think, all you need to say,” Zuckerman said.

Awaiting a Decision

The justices have yet to issue a ruling on the case. However, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Douglas Fasciale and John Jay Hoffman recused themselves from the hearing, given Rabner’s involvement in advocating for Daniel’s Law.

Observers say the court’s decision could have significant implications for how government transparency and press freedoms are balanced in New Jersey. If Kratovil loses," says Terrence McDonald, it may "embolden officials who already do their damndest to keep public information out of the hands of the pesky public. For that, I worry.”